Electric Velomobiles are the future

Kieran_Burns

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2012/10/ ... biles.html

Apparently, cycling is rubbish and uncomfortable and wet and horrible and slow and smelly and inefficient.

Yeesh.

I got a bit ranty when I read this bit:

Few people find the bicycle useful for distances longer than 5 km (3 miles). In the USA, for instance, 85 % of bicycle trips involve a trip of less than 5 km. Even in the Netherlands, the most bicycle-friendly country in the western world, 77 % of bike trips are less than 5 km. Only 1 % of Dutch bicycle trips are more than 15 km (9 miles). In contrast, the average car trip amounts to 15.5 km in the USA and 16.5 km in the Netherlands, with the average trip to work being 19.5 km in the USA and 22 km in the Netherlands. (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.)

It's clear that the bicycle is not a viable alternative to the car. Depending on his or her fitness, a cyclist reaches cruising speeds of 10 to 25 km/h, which means that the average trip to work would take at least two to four hours, there and back. A strong headwind would make it even longer, and when the cyclist is in a hurry or has to climb hills, he or she would arrive all sweaty. When it rains, the cyclist arrives soaking wet, and when it's cold hands and feet would freeze. Longer trips on a bicycle also affect the body: wrists, back, shoulders and crotch all suffer, especially when you choose a faster bike.

DrLex

I, for one, would like to go to work in an egg:

Agent57

Well, it's fair enough to say that cycling is unrealistic for many people beyond a certain distance - if only for the time involved.

Those electric Velomobiles look fun and cool! I want one. They remind me of the single-seater sports car I drove at a track day a few years ago - and if they're anything like as much fun to pootle about in, I'm all for it.

stuaff

A riding bud of mine has a (entirely human powered) WAW velomobile. Very impressive bit of kit, have one in mind should (as is possibly) I end up with a 20 mile commute. Can't see the point of electrical assist for them under EU law though- limited to 15 mph when most riders could comfortably hold 25-30 if not more is silly.

You're absolutely right about the rant KB!

MrSweary

Does it come with clown shoes or are they extra?

The Rookie

They could learn Maths...
Pet hate but "the drag coefficient of a velomobilist is up to 30 times lower -- he or she can attain higher speeds with the same effort." means it's 29 times the value and negative so drives you along, I think they meant 1/30th (which I don't actually believe - although the up to caveat means it could be just 10% better!).

Translate one to a city commute though, wider, less visible, less accelerative - a few mph on top speed is still going to make it slower.

€10500 - WTH?

Kieran_Burns

Exsqueeze me?

When the battery of an electric velomobile drains, the velomobilist can still pedal home -- at speeds above those of a bicycle.

With all the extra weight of the batteries and cowling? I hope it's all downhill or COMPLETELY flat after the battery dies.

UndercoverElephant

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Exsqueeze me?

When the battery of an electric velomobile drains, the velomobilist can still pedal home -- at speeds above those of a bicycle.

With all the extra weight of the batteries and cowling? I hope it's all downhill or COMPLETELY flat after the battery dies.

Bonkers article wrote:

The WAW stands out because of its weight (it is 28 kg, as opposed to 34 kg, the weight of the most popular velomobiles, the Dutch Quest and Alleweder)

Headhuunter

"a cyclist reaches cruising speeds of 10 to 25 km/h"...

Huh?! 10kmh is about 6mph, that's about the speed of a gentle jog. I think I'd wobble and fall off at that speed...! 25kmh may be realistic for some of the slower commuters on London's roads but I "cruise" at around 30kmh and many other riders I see do too... The person who wrote this article is clearly and unfit wobble bottom...

Santa cruzing

Headhuunter wrote:

The person who wrote this article is clearly an idiot of fantastic proportions and providing 'stats' to back up their agenda.

FTFY

jimmypippa

Kieran_Burns wrote:

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2012/10/electric-velomobiles.html

Apparently, cycling is rubbish and uncomfortable and wet and horrible and slow and smelly and inefficient.

Yeesh.

I got a bit ranty when I read this bit:

Few people find the bicycle useful for distances longer than 5 km (3 miles). In the USA, for instance, 85 % of bicycle trips involve a trip of less than 5 km. Even in the Netherlands, the most bicycle-friendly country in the western world, 77 % of bike trips are less than 5 km. Only 1 % of Dutch bicycle trips are more than 15 km (9 miles). In contrast, the average car trip amounts to 15.5 km in the USA and 16.5 km in the Netherlands, with the average trip to work being 19.5 km in the USA and 22 km in the Netherlands. (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.)

It's clear that the bicycle is not a viable alternative to the car. Depending on his or her fitness, a cyclist reaches cruising speeds of 10 to 25 km/h, which means that the average trip to work would take at least two to four hours, there and back. A strong headwind would make it even longer, and when the cyclist is in a hurry or has to climb hills, he or she would arrive all sweaty. When it rains, the cyclist arrives soaking wet, and when it's cold hands and feet would freeze. Longer trips on a bicycle also affect the body: wrists, back, shoulders and crotch all suffer, especially when you choose a faster bike.

I like the use of the word "average" (which is usually taken as the mean) - as far as numbers of journeys the median is more informative, and is also a shorter distance, as a single long journey skews the results for the mean.

Hey, I think both of us have a longer commute than the UK median distance (about 8-miles each way) and that includes cars. A significant number of car journeys are under 2-miles. (I might try to dig out the details later)

jimmypippa

I just looked at the first link in that article:

Half of all trips are three miles or less, but fewer than 2 percent of those trips are made by bicycle, while 72 percent of them are driven. Private vehicles like cars, pick-up trucks, and SUVs, account for 60 percent of trips of a mile or less. Think about that next time you hear people wondering why we have such big problems with the environment, health and childhood obesity, and traffic congestion.

Kind of makes my point from the previous post.

stuaff

The Beginner wrote:

They could learn Maths...
Pet hate but "the drag coefficient of a velomobilist is up to 30 times lower -- he or she can attain higher speeds with the same effort." means it's 29 times the value and negative so drives you along, I think they meant 1/30th (which I don't actually believe - although the up to caveat means it could be just 10% better!).

Translate one to a city commute though, wider, less visible, less accelerative - a few mph on top speed is still going to make it slower.

€10500 - WTH?

The maths in the article is dodgy, but the speed gains from the lower drag of a velomobile (or other streamlined recumbent) are massive, and genuine. Comparing a velomobile to a regular road bike- even a full-on TT bike- is kind of like comparing a hypercar (Veyron/McLaren F1 etc) to an F1 car with the same power output. The bike will be faster off the line, more nimble, faster on steep climbs for most riders. But once it's overcome its initial inertia, a velo can both enable its rider to reach considerably higher speeds than a conventional bike, and sustain high speeds far more easily. Try http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm for comparisons. Mate with the WAW reckons that it needs about 15% more effort than his other ('regular' recumbent) bikes in his regular riding territory (the hillier parts of Kent). But about 30% quicker...He's ridden up Ditchling Beacon and Devil's Dyke in it. And he did a 300 mile ride, from home to Land's End, at a rolling average of 16.5 mph.

As for the visibility- these things get a lot of attention. They're kind of hard to miss!

First.Aspect

So, we believe an author who claims that average commuting distances in the Netherlands are greater than those in the US?

All I can say is:-

stuaff

First Aspect wrote:

So, we believe an author who claims that average commuting distances in the Netherlands are greater than those in the US?

All I can say is:-

I think it's been established that the author can't count and has used a few dubious stats, not to mention some which are plain wrong. But there is more than a grain of truth in the piece. And comparing a velomobile to a C5 or a Segway is nonsense. No C5 could do PBP in under 45 hours.....one of these did...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPgDdAx9K7E

Unless of course, you're this fast on a conventional bike. In which case, why aren't you a professional rider?

daviesee

Kieran_Burns wrote:

....

......Depending on his or her fitness, a cyclist reaches cruising speeds of 10 to 25 km/h.....

Two points.

1. Are girlies that slow?
2. I like it when people give the impression that my pace is awesome.

Big_Paul

The C5 was subject to a bit of a hatchet job by the media, Sir Clive was portrayed as a bit of a mad scientist and because Hoover made the electrical stuff it was made out to be the bastard child of a tricycle and a washing machine. The biggest fault with the C5 was it was 25 years ahead of its time.

One of the local shopping centres got a couple of Segways for the security guards, whether on loan or they forked out cash for them I can't recall, but they lasted about a week until one of the chaps went full tilt into Burger King's window, IIRC it wasn't a fast crash but he was quite badly hurt. :shock:

I think electric assisted bikes will be popular in years to come if they can get the price right, but those egg things? No freakin' way........ :roll:

First.Aspect

I think they are exactly the same as a C5.... pretty much. The only problem with the C5 was that it was powered by two electrodes stuck into a potato. Give it a laptop battery and it would go like snot.

stuaff

First Aspect wrote:

I think they are exactly the same as a C5.... pretty much. The only problem with the C5 was that it was powered by two electrodes stuck into a potato. Give it a laptop battery and it would go like snot.

My mistake. Obviously, a velomobile is exactly the same as a C5. Apart from the weight, and the aerodynamics, and the build quality, and the performance......

First.Aspect

StuAff wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

I think they are exactly the same as a C5.... pretty much. The only problem with the C5 was that it was powered by two electrodes stuck into a potato. Give it a laptop battery and it would go like snot.

My mistake. Obviously, a velomobile is exactly the same as a C5. Apart from the weight, and the aerodynamics, and the build quality, and the performance......

Its a similar solution to the same problem though, isn't it? Yes, a C5 has about as much in common with today's version as a ZX Spectrum has with an iPad, but if you can't see the similarity there is something wrong with your eyesight.

Due to the similarities, I can't see them catching on.

Electric cars on the other hand, I can see catching on.

ooermissus

I like the claim that you won't "arrive all sweaty" having spent an hour peddling away in an aerodynamic carbon coffin.

stuaff

First Aspect wrote:

StuAff wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

I think they are exactly the same as a C5.... pretty much. The only problem with the C5 was that it was powered by two electrodes stuck into a potato. Give it a laptop battery and it would go like snot.

My mistake. Obviously, a velomobile is exactly the same as a C5. Apart from the weight, and the aerodynamics, and the build quality, and the performance......

Its a similar solution to the same problem though, isn't it? Yes, a C5 has about as much in common with today's version as a ZX Spectrum has with an iPad, but if you can't see the similarity there is something wrong with your eyesight.

Due to the similarities, I can't see them catching on.

Electric cars on the other hand, I can see catching on.

I didn't say there was no similarity. The C5, for all its considerable limitations, is about the nearest thing to a mass-market velomobile that's been produced to date. But a WAW, Milan or Quest is about as far removed from a C5 as your best bike is from a ropey old supermarket BSO that's seen much better days, and didn't work right when it was new anyway. 45 kg vs 20-30 kg. Single speed, and inefficient with it vs whatever-drivetrain-you-like, up to and including Di2 etc. No weather protection or safety features vs wind-tunnel tested, crumple zones, roll cage.. Velomobiles certainly aren't for everyone (even if the prices were comparable to 'regular' bikes- though they are to high-end ones), or for every riding situation (which is why n+1 works, right?), but there's a heck of a lot of difference.



Try looking at some of the footage on YouTube, like the video I posted upthread, and then tell me you're not at least impressed by the speed.....

stuaff

ooermissus wrote:

I like the claim that you won't "arrive all sweaty" having spent an hour peddling away in an aerodynamic carbon coffin.

Stupid claim, but no sweatier than many of us end up anyway....

greg66_tri_v2.0

Kieran_Burns wrote:

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2012/10/electric-velomobiles.html

Apparently, cycling is rubbish and uncomfortable and wet and horrible and slow and smelly and inefficient.

Yeesh.

I got a bit ranty when I read this bit:

Few people find the bicycle useful for distances longer than 5 km (3 miles). In the USA, for instance, 85 % of bicycle trips involve a trip of less than 5 km. Even in the Netherlands, the most bicycle-friendly country in the western world, 77 % of bike trips are less than 5 km. Only 1 % of Dutch bicycle trips are more than 15 km (9 miles). In contrast, the average car trip amounts to 15.5 km in the USA and 16.5 km in the Netherlands, with the average trip to work being 19.5 km in the USA and 22 km in the Netherlands. (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.)

It's clear that the bicycle is not a viable alternative to the car. Depending on his or her fitness, a cyclist reaches cruising speeds of 10 to 25 km/h, which means that the average trip to work would take at least two to four hours, there and back. A strong headwind would make it even longer, and when the cyclist is in a hurry or has to climb hills, he or she would arrive all sweaty. When it rains, the cyclist arrives soaking wet, and when it's cold hands and feet would freeze. Longer trips on a bicycle also affect the body: wrists, back, shoulders and crotch all suffer, especially when you choose a faster bike.

None of the dog turds in that article look remotely appealing, but IIRC the Lit C1 is a bit more promising. I remember being impressed at some video footage of failed attempts to put it on the deck.

jimmypippa

StuAff wrote:

Tryhttp://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

Thanks for this link it shows why one tends to lose with headwinds.

Assume a round trip 10-miles in each direction on a mountain bike with the default values and I get a speed of 16.1-mph.

now add in a 10-mph Headwind and the speed drops to 10.7-mph whilst a 10-mph tailwind give 22.7-mph

10-miles into the wind and 10-miles with the wind would take 56-minutes into the wind and 26-minutes with the wind (about 83-minutes round trip) and 74-minutes with no headwind